High Court Doesn’t Act As Appellate Authority & Has Limited Scope Of Interference in Labour Court's Award In Disciplinary Proceedings : Andhra Pradesh HC

In the instant writ petition, the Award of the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Guntur, was called into question. Consequently, the writ petitioner also sought reinstatement, continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam said, “In fact, the Writ Petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and found the charges proved.”

Advocate P N Murthy represented the Peititoner while Standing Counsel Vinod Kumar Tarlada appeared for the Respondent-Corporation.

The petitioner joined in service as a Conductor in the year 1997 in the respondent Corporation at Tadepalligudem. In 2005, during his employment when he was discharging his duties on the Bus which was proceeding from Bheemavaram to Tadepalligudem near Chilakampadu Last stage, the respondent authorities i.e., TTIs conducted a surprise check. On the said check, they found gross irregularities by the petitioner in not issuing the tickets to the passenger, even after collecting the requisite amount.

The petitioner was charged with violation of the rule "Issue & Start"  which constitutes serious misconduct under the APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulation 1963. It was the case of the petitioner that he had submitted an explanation to the said charges, but the Enquiry Officer without perceiving the same, held the petitioner guilty. Based on the enquiry report, the petitioner was terminated from the service. The petitioner challenged the removal orders, but the Appellate authority as well as reviewing authority rejected the same respectively. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent Labour Court, Guntur by invoking the provisions under Section 2 A (2) ofthe  Industrial Disputes Act, and the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the High Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution Of India.

It was the petitioner’s case that the Labour Court did not take into consideration the fact that, the passengers were under the influence of Alcohol. It was contended that the factual aspects were not appreciated in the lis. He also sought for the setting aside of the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court

The Counsel for the Respondent vehemently asserted that the writ petitioner did not disclose the facts which were within his knowledge namely that, he was dismissed from service, awarded censure on three occasions, and had his annual increments deferred twice.

Referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in Union of India & ors Vs P.Gunasekaran (2015) & State of A.P vs S. Sree Rama Rao (1963), the Bench said, “Thus the above legal position makes it clear that, in disciplinary proceedings, the High Court does not act as an appellate authority and has a limited scope of interference in the Labour Court's award, particularly with respect to factual aspects.”

The Bench observed that the petitioner who is the claimant failed to substantiate his case and did not even submit a single piece of paper to prove his claims. In contrast, the Respondent Corporation authorities got marked which substantiated the case of Respondent Corporation.“In the absence of plausible evidence, merely asserting for the sake of argument in relation to passengers being under the influence of alcohol has no legal significance and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny”, it said.

The Bench clarified that the Labour Court had considered the instant lis at length and came to unequivocal findings in respect of facts in the issue. It opined that the enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law and that there had been no violation of the principles of natural justice or any other statutory provision in vogue. The Bench further stated that the Writ Petitioner is bound with the responsibility to collect the correct fare from the passenger, issue the ticket and remit the same amount into the Respondent corporation credit. “Failing to issue the ticket after collecting the amount from the passenger constitutes serious misconduct and the petitioner was found guilty of breaching the trust of the Respondent Corporation. In such a case, it would be inappropriate for this Court to show leniency by interfering with the well considered Award dt:15.09.2008 and setting it aside, where it is found that the bus conductor had failed to issue ticket to passenger", it said.

The Bench further held, “...the respondent Corporation is a public utility service and the very appointment of the petitioner was to abide by the mandatory rules and regulations. The mandatory rules stipulate that, the petitioner should complete the issuance of tickets correctly at the boarding point itself, then move the bus for further journey and close the S.R. before the arrival of next fare stage. However, the petitioner herein violated the same by moving the bus without completing the pre-requisites and reached the next stage without ensuring the issuance of a valid ticket to the passenger on board. Thus, the petitioner has violated the Rule of “Issue and Start” of the Respondent Corporation.”

Thus, the Bench dismissed the Petition and upheld the Order of the Tribunal.

Cause Title: Ganasala Krishna v.The Presiding Officer 2 Others and Others (Neutral Citation: 2024:APHC:50888)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocate P N Murthy

Respondent: Standing Counsel Vinod Kumar Tarlada

Click here to read/download Order